It’s not easy communicating exactly what is meant with the written word. In classic fashion for an Internet forum we end up “talking” past each other, making inaccurate assumptions about what is meant by someone else and digging our heels in when taking positions on the subject at hand. So, what exactly is the point here? Better still, what exactly is meant by “the sound of live”?
I think there is agreement about two things: Reproduced music, no matter the genre, will never sound exactly like live and reproduced music is for enjoyment (duh!).
FOR ME the components of music that suffer the most as a result of the record/reproduce process are timbre and dynamic nuance. Not, dynamics in the sense of how loud things can get, but in the sense of how alive the music sounds; even (especially) when very soft and how seamlessly it moves from, for instance, very very soft to just very soft; and between all the other steps in the dynamics scale. For purposes of this thread (and for me, generally) imaging, sound staging, holography and their ultimate scale are completely irrelevant to me; and not very important in general. Why? Because if one is sitting outside our audiophile designated “sweet spot”, all that goes to hell anyway. I hope that there is also general agreement that anyone who can’t enjoy a recording if sitting outside the sweet spot probably should reconsider his priorities. Besides, timbre and dynamic nuance is where the music is. Everything else is audiophile stuff that many confuse for components of music. Think that’s wrong? Look up any meaningful text, book, article, etc. on the subject of MUSIC and find the chapter on “sound staging”. Good luck.
In my experience the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance are precisely the areas where most “audiophile systems” fall short. The deviations from what is heard live are sometimes grotesque. Excessive and often harsh highs, overblown and discontinuous bass and sometimes a kind of hyper detail that simply does not occur in live music. That kind of sound can be impressive and even the most pleasing for some. So be it. I prefer to work at voicing my system so that, first and foremost, the end result moves the sound in the direction of what I hear live in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance. It is, in fact, possible to get surprisingly close sometimes. Soundstaging? A distant third concern; if at all. It has little to do with music. So, no concerns about parking space 😉.
Going back to the first point of agreement, that reproduced music will never sound EXACTLY like the sound of live. True, but much can be done to voice a system so that, overall, it moves the reproduction of timbre closer, not further away, from the general sound of live. To me, that is a far better choice for reaching enjoyment. Why? Because more of the MUSIC is preserved.
To borrow the sign off used by one of our more controversial Audiogon members:
Enjoy the music, not distortions.
(I think that’s how it goes 😊)
I think there is agreement about two things: Reproduced music, no matter the genre, will never sound exactly like live and reproduced music is for enjoyment (duh!).
FOR ME the components of music that suffer the most as a result of the record/reproduce process are timbre and dynamic nuance. Not, dynamics in the sense of how loud things can get, but in the sense of how alive the music sounds; even (especially) when very soft and how seamlessly it moves from, for instance, very very soft to just very soft; and between all the other steps in the dynamics scale. For purposes of this thread (and for me, generally) imaging, sound staging, holography and their ultimate scale are completely irrelevant to me; and not very important in general. Why? Because if one is sitting outside our audiophile designated “sweet spot”, all that goes to hell anyway. I hope that there is also general agreement that anyone who can’t enjoy a recording if sitting outside the sweet spot probably should reconsider his priorities. Besides, timbre and dynamic nuance is where the music is. Everything else is audiophile stuff that many confuse for components of music. Think that’s wrong? Look up any meaningful text, book, article, etc. on the subject of MUSIC and find the chapter on “sound staging”. Good luck.
In my experience the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance are precisely the areas where most “audiophile systems” fall short. The deviations from what is heard live are sometimes grotesque. Excessive and often harsh highs, overblown and discontinuous bass and sometimes a kind of hyper detail that simply does not occur in live music. That kind of sound can be impressive and even the most pleasing for some. So be it. I prefer to work at voicing my system so that, first and foremost, the end result moves the sound in the direction of what I hear live in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance. It is, in fact, possible to get surprisingly close sometimes. Soundstaging? A distant third concern; if at all. It has little to do with music. So, no concerns about parking space 😉.
Going back to the first point of agreement, that reproduced music will never sound EXACTLY like the sound of live. True, but much can be done to voice a system so that, overall, it moves the reproduction of timbre closer, not further away, from the general sound of live. To me, that is a far better choice for reaching enjoyment. Why? Because more of the MUSIC is preserved.
To borrow the sign off used by one of our more controversial Audiogon members:
Enjoy the music, not distortions.
(I think that’s how it goes 😊)